Was there an answer to my question in all that? You clarified that you don't mean the NT writers lied, but then you didn't address the question of why the writers told the same stories, whether lies or something else.

It doesn't matter to me why these 'stories' (keyword) sound similar. They are not historically reliable (as they are filled with inconsistencies, contradictions, borrowed stories and errors). The Barabas story for example is clearly a myth (see video below) and the dying/rising god narrative isn't new at all. It existed in lots of other pagan myths prior to Christianity. This emulates precisely what we see in other man-made false religions. But there are any number of possibilities that could explain the similarities, none of which require the amount of assumptions you are making (for example one writer could have started it, maybe Mark, and then the others just copied off of him or subsequent copies). To merely assume their accounts are true a priori is to display an absurd (and hypocritical) standard of evidence.

CLEAR MYTHS:

-worldwide darkness over everything for three hours-zombies of corpses getting up out of the grave and walking around Jerusalem -alleged ground breaking/rock splitting earthquake -Barabas (a fictional character in Luke with a fake name) claimed to be the prisoner allowed to escape-The Jesus/Cleopas story (mimicking the Roman Romulus/Proculus story) -The parabolic story of "Lazarus" in Luke (who won't convince anyone), changing to a 'real' Lazarus in John rising from the dead (to convince people)

Historical narratives do not make these kinds of claims. They do not have these kinds ofsymbols, parables, and metaphors. Myths and mythology do. And we have ZERO (0) contemporary historical accounts of any of it. Funny huh? Thus, we cannot trust them (just like we cannot trust the other man-made fictions of old to be reliable sources of history) and the fact that you would believe and defend them shows your bias toward confirmation, from the a priori assumption that they are stating fact. Again, it is gullibility to just believe textual accounts of the miraculous and supernatural, and this is again quite characteristic of credulity throughout the world religions (ancient and modern).

Textual claims to the miraculous cannot, do not, and will not confirm the miraculous because they are unreliable. Men throughout history have, over and again, made up false stories, embellished, exaggerated, plagiarized, and copied credulous hear-say for far too long (and far too wide) to place trust in them (see Islam, Mormonism, and countless others). Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and we simply do not even have ordinary evidence for such claims in the bible. Thus we shouldn't place any trust in such claims.

Do the trees say "Hecho in Heaven" on them? Do cows have an Ichthus (IXOYE) stamp on their ass from birth? Where is this alleged sign of God's "eternal power and divine nature" (Romans 1)? It simply isn't there and Paul was just as credulous and gullible to believe it. But it's no surprise. He was living in a pre-scientific age, filled with religious/pagan credulity and myth where people believed the earth was flat, decease was from demons, and thunder storms were from the gods.

1. Of course there was some substance behind the writings in the New Testament, In all probability there was a Jesus, an itinerant preacher - such were common in Palestine at that time. He appears not to have come up with much original in his preaching but after his death, his followers thought they had seen him again (this is quite common in bereaved people by the way). So, of course, the rumour that Jesus had risen from the dead came to be accepted truth by the time that anything much was being written down.

These arguments cancel each other out in my opinion. It seems to me that if Jesus was just one of many such preachers and unoriginal in his teachings, the huge reaction to his death and apparent resurrection would not have been so remarkable as to prompt the rise of Christianity.

2. To understand the fact that the authors of the NT documents were not writing in the dark and separate from each other. It is clear that Mark's gospel formed the basis for Matthew and Luke as well as John so, or course, they had much the same facts. Of course, each of the latter gospels has extra bits - the birth narratives and enlarged stories of Jesus' death and resurrection - and in these the authors went off on their own to some extent.

What actual evidence are you relying on to suggest that Mark's gospel was a basis for Matthew and Luke? Luke actually specifically draws attention to the fact that he has taken it upon himself to create an account of things, based on careful investigation.

Finally, don't forget that there were a lot more gospels than four and the church in the 2nd and 3rd century had to choose what would go into a cannon and, obviously, only kept the books that had a common idea of the story of Jesus etc.

It suggests this to a skeptic. To me it suggests a process was used to establish which gospels were most reliable. One day I hope to find time to better research the cannonisation process to see what is documented.

These arguments cancel each other out in my opinion. It seems to me that if Jesus was just one of many such preachers and unoriginal in his teachings, the huge reaction to his death and apparent resurrection would not have been so remarkable as to prompt the rise of Christianity.

There you go with more intellectual hypocrisy (and gullibility) again. Take your argument and apply it to Islam in the same fashion, or Mormonism, or Hinduism. It's exactly the same. Misinformation, lies, half truths, credulity and and outright forgeries can spread like wildfire. History has shown this repeatedly. It makes no difference whatsoever that your religion spread far and wide (just as it makes no difference whether this occurred for another religion in another part of the world).

You are, again, speaking from a place of ignorance and credulity. You simply don't know what could have happened back then and the evidence shows that men are filled with rumor, inaccurate stories, and fiction gone wild. Listen to yourself! It's absurd. Fabrications (whether deliberate or not) are extremely common and you are perpetuating the ignorance of it.

What actual evidence are you relying on to suggest that Mark's gospel was a basis for Matthew and Luke? Luke actually specifically draws attention to the fact that he has taken it upon himself to create an account of things, based on careful investigation.

And again more credulity. Why are you just taking your won word for it? Can you not see this gullibility? "Well, it says so, so it must be right, right?" You wouldn't do this with any other religious text. So stop doing it with the bible!

It suggests this to a skeptic. To me it suggests a process was used to establish which gospels were most reliable. One day I hope to find time to better research the cannonisation process to see what is documented.

More intellectual hypocrisy. Do you believe in Zeus? How about Mithra? Do you accept the Book of Mormon as an authority? What are you a skeptic?!

Skepticism is a good thing. It helps us (yourself included Mr. hypocrite) to filter out nonsense. You just don't want to apply it equally across the board because it would mean you would have to give up your belief in the bible as "the Word of God".Do you believe everything a salesman at your door tells you?

It doesn't matter to me why these 'stories' (keyword) sound similar. They are not historically reliable (as they are filled with inconsistencies, contradictions, borrowed stories and errors).

Would you be more accepting of the gospels if there no inconsistencies or apparent contradictions? Would this make them more historically reliable?

There could be no apparent contradictions in them and if they still made claims to the supernatural/miraculous they would still be suspect to critical investigation (just like any other claim from any other religion, cult, sect, or group around the world).

Median, your replies to many of my posts amount to little more than auto-pilot rants and often don't address a specifc point I am making within the context of the discussion. It's tiresome.

Sorry, I strongly disagree. Read them again. I have addressed the points you have attempted to ask/raise. If I have not answered them in the fashion you are wanting then perhaps you should adjust your expectations and try to understand. My responses are not rants at all and I'm not going to placate to your desires of how I decide to answer a question. I have specifically answered the posts you have made. If you refuse to see that then it's on you.

Median, your replies to many of my posts amount to little more than auto-pilot rants and often don't address a specifc point I am making within the context of the discussion. It's tiresome.

Sorry, I strongly disagree. Read them again. I have addressed the points you have attempted to ask/raise. If I have not answered them in the fashion you are wanting then perhaps you should adjust your expectations and try to understand. My responses are not rants at all and I'm not going to placate to your desires of how I decide to answer a question. I have specifically answered the posts you have made. If you refuse to see that then it's on you.

1. Of course there was some substance behind the writings in the New Testament, In all probability there was a Jesus, an itinerant preacher - such were common in Palestine at that time. He appears not to have come up with much original in his preaching but after his death, his followers thought they had seen him again (this is quite common in bereaved people by the way). So, of course, the rumour that Jesus had risen from the dead came to be accepted truth by the time that anything much was being written down.

These arguments cancel each other out in my opinion. It seems to me that if Jesus was just one of many such preachers and unoriginal in his teachings, the huge reaction to his death and apparent resurrection would not have been so remarkable as to prompt the rise of Christianity.

So I was responding to a specific suggestion by Wheels that Jesus was nothing special. I suggested that if that was the case, it seems strange that anything to do with his death and apparent resurrection would prompt such a huge reaction. If Jesus was run of the mill, who cares if some crackpots think they saw him alive again?

There you go with more intellectual hypocrisy (and gullibility) again. Take your argument and apply it to Islam in the same fashion, or Mormonism, or Hinduism. It's exactly the same. Misinformation, lies, half truths, credulity and and outright forgeries can spread like wildfire. History has shown this repeatedly. It makes no difference whatsoever that your religion spread far and wide (just as it makes no difference whether this occurred for another religion in another part of the world).

You are, again, speaking from a place of ignorance and credulity. You simply don't know what could have happened back then and the evidence shows that men are filled with rumor, inaccurate stories, and fiction gone wild. Listen to yourself! It's absurd. Fabrications (whether deliberate or not) are extremely common and you are perpetuating the ignorance of it.

All you do is ridicule the point I made, you do not discuss it in any meaningful way.

All you do is ridicule the point I made, you do not discuss it in any meaningful way.

I directly responded to your response regarding 'If Jesus was just an ordinary X, then it doesn't explain why Christianity spread' and my response was quite meaningful (but I can certainly understand why you would want to call anything that is critical of your theology non-meaningful). On the contrary, my response has plenty of meaning. Perhaps you need to read it again, try to understand better, or adjust your definition of "meaningful" b/c there is plenty of meaning there which pertains directly to the subject. Again, it makes no difference to the argument whether (or how fast) Christianity spread. How fast "word gets out" is no indication of the truth or falsity of a claim. And just because a specific religion had quick acceptance or 'a great response' doesn't indicate at all what it's truth value is (as I mentioned earlier). I provided at least two counter-examples to your claim (Islam and Mormonism) and you ignored them, instead touting "your answer wasn't meaningful" (the pot calling the kettle black).

Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Given the rapid spread of Christianity and the writing of several gospels, which is the liklier to you:

* Jesus was a run of the mill itinerant preacher, quite common for the time

* Jesus was not a run of the mill itinerant preacher. There was something different about him.

You have presented a false dichotomy. That is what you keep missing. It also leaves out much information (which I mentioned earlier). There simply isn't enough information to make a correct judgment about who this alleged character was we find in those books (for reasons mentioned prior). The gospels simply are not reliable and since we have no contemporary accounts of any of these alleged accounts there is significant reason to doubt their claims (just like we have significant reason to doubt the claims of other religions in history).

So you are saying there is simply no basis upon which to make even an educated guess as to whether Jesus was anything other than a common itinerant preacher?

Why would you want to GUESS?? This is exactly the problem. You're coming from a place of credulity - resting your assumptions upon extremely shifty old writings, with a willingness to just believe from prior convictions. I used to share those convictions but they are not rationally consistent b/c you don't apply the same standard to other claims of the miraculous or supernatural. Again, why the f*** would you guess about this kind of a question when you simply don't know? - especially since men throughout history have been demonstrated to have made things up, been wrong about their interpretations, plainly lied, or believed hear-say uncritically. Guessing isn't a reliable way to separate fact from fiction! - especially when it comes to claims of the supernatural. Is such guessing really good enough for you? I'd like to see you apply that standard consistently throughout every aspect of life.

Can you see that, in the specific matter under discussion, the reliability of the writings simply has no bearing? What is relevant is that they exist. About Jesus. To me, that suggests Jesus was more than a standard itinerant preacher. Are you saying the existence of the gospels, and the rise of Christianity, is not in any way suggestive to you that Jesus was more than a standard preacher of the times? I am not asking you to speculate beyond that.

Given the rapid spread of Christianity and the writing of several gospels, which is the liklier to you:

* Jesus was a run of the mill itinerant preacher, quite common for the time

* Jesus was not a run of the mill itinerant preacher. There was something different about him.

Why are some Gospels that make Jesus out to be less than perfect omitted from all the writings that became the Bible? If a Gospel that is written about Jesus can be censored or omitted,can it truly be held to be truth?

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

12M, I am not an expert on the Canonisation process. I simply don't know. However, the fact that there are writings about Jesus beyond the biblical inclusions simply emphasises the point I am trying to make here: that it is likely Jesus was not just your usual preacher.

Can you see that, in the specific matter under discussion, the reliability of the writings simply has no bearing? What is relevant is that they exist. About Jesus. To me, that suggests Jesus was more than a standard itinerant preacher. Are you saying the existence of the gospels, and the rise of Christianity, is not in any way suggestive to you that Jesus was more than a standard preacher of the times? I am not asking you to speculate beyond that.

How many times do I have to say it? We don't know! And likely cannot know. And you should stop pretending to. Lots of people throughout history have made up all sorts of fictitious stories, passing them down verbally only to have them believed and eventually written down and preached/mandated to others. You are resting your belief upon speculation and you wouldn't do that with other religious claims (regardless of the same spin their apologists claim).

Do the writings of Romulus, Apollonius of Tyana, Attus, Mithra, Krisha or the Egyptian book of the Dead "suggest" their subjects were "more than standard"?? It's baffling how you can't see that you are practicing credulity and gullibility.

12M, I am not an expert on the Canonisation process. I simply don't know. However, the fact that there are writings about Jesus beyond the biblical inclusions simply emphasises the point I am trying to make here: that it is likely Jesus was not just your usual preacher.

As a Haida we have had stories of Raven,Eagle and of other supernatural beings,passed on for 12,000 years or more here on the northwest coast of our world. None of our writings(totems are a form of written stories) mention a Messiah named Jesus,as do none of the many cultures around the world.

Storytellers are going to tell the stories they have knowledge of,passed down from, the generations before. One of the reasons our "stories" have almost disappeared from the timeline is because of your ancestors viewed us as heathens and killed us by the thousands.

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)